So I have a GM running a game that has looked through the Allies and Adversaries book and thinks PCs should get an extremely low amount of XP per session, like between 2-4 XP a 3-4 hr session. At that rate, we will never complete a specialization at all. From my understanding he feels Stormtroopers should always be a threat in a fight, but they're minions and not designed to be a major threat.

What can I do to convince him that people will lose interest with that slow of a progression?

I'm going to attach my original character from the game, he is a rather cool character, imo.

How much of a threat would you think this character is to the balance of a game? This character had the most XP, for narrative reasons, but I don't see where the problem is.

HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HawkCompact.pdf

I am an EotE gm that did some unintentional low xp game sessions, but not that as low as 2-4. Going that low will sniffle player growth since star wars isn't quite the slow placed game as something like WoD.

And just because something is a minion doesn't mean it is not dangerous.
If say the first group of storm troopers isn't that good, he can strengthen them or give them better tactics or advantage. Include Sergeants and use multiple groups of minions.
Something like in very big fire fights, very large groups of minions may have an effective adversary rating making fighting them more dangerous.
And of course there is always the looming threat of a lot more on their way (with heavier weapons).

With low xp, your group may not be able to develop the non-combat talents to avoid or escape threatening storm troopers. Especially if he wants to play the empire as intelligent (in which case there are only so many times the group can pull off the same stunts over and over again and escape)

At the very least, would recommend talking to your GM about what the players want to be able to do in the campaign, and what kinds of interests and expectations the GM has and negotiate some setups that are better for everyone.

Your GM is working from an incorrect assumption, minion groups of 6 plus characters are a threat to anyone not in a vehicle (and some that are depending on weapons load out of the minion group and the type of vehicle). The reasons are

1) the likely 3 yellow + 3 green dice pool with a probably 8 or 9 base damage

Vs.

2) wound thresholds of PCs that don't grow quickly

I don't think you are going to enjoy this game if you need to have progression above any other consideration such as story or getting new equipment and money. Your GM is trying to run a game in which the players are meant to value play at the start as well as at the end, instead of just seeing the beginning character as an unacceptable state of being.

If you try and force the GM to have a higher power game what will likely happen is that the GM will start to not like the characters as they become more and more powerful and he has to throw rancor death squads at the PCs to even challenge them. The GM will lose interest and the game will die as the GM starts to see it as a job instead of as a means of creative expression and fun.

Progression is part of the game, by nerfing things to basically 1/5th normal progression we will be the same characters for an insanely long time.

Do D&D games revolve around killing Goblins, or other 1st level creatures, for years on end to finally hit higher level?

I love a good story, but you also need progression. I'm at the point where everything in my spec costs 10xp. That is, possibly, up to 5 game sessions to get ONE talent.

The metric Jay little who created much of the game suggests is 5 XP per hour of actual gaming. Not BSing around the table but gaming. So a 4 hour session of actual gaming should be around 20 XP. I see a lot of GMs really lowball the XP which is annoying later in game because in the OPs case that means 5 games just to get a tier 4 talent and 6 to get a teir 5 talent. and 8 to get a non career tree. When the intended rate is a maybe 2 sessions to get a teir 5 or another tree.

9 hours ago, bblaney001 said:

So I  have a GM running a game that has looked through the Allies and Adversaries  book and thinks PCs should get an extremely low amount of XP per session, like between 2-4 XP a 3-4 hr sess    io  n.  

Yep... He looked at the big bads, realized the players could defeat them, and panicked.

This is a common occurrence with all RPGs based on an IP with characters that exist concurrent with the players. There's always a belief that those characters must be so powerful that the players cannot defeat them, lest some kind of paradox occur and George Lucas will show up and take your books away. It's silly, untrue, and a little childish, but there you have it.

Solution? You and all the other players do this: go to the gm as a group. Explain you respect his concern, but feel your own story and progression is more important to the overall group fun of the game. As such, you wish to make a gentleman's agreement: he awards 5ish XP per hour of play, and in exchange you agree to always treat major IP characters and thier place in established events with the appropriate respect (and won't be disappointed in any way should you never come across one at all). You will also assume the stats in Allies and Adversaries are just examples, and if the GM can alter and upgrade them however he needs to ensure balance with the party.

It's not a guarantee that the GM will come to his senses, and you may get trounced by a Boba Fett throwing 10 yellow dice on every check, but its worth a try.

7 hours ago, bblaney001 said:

Progression is part of the game, by nerfing things to basically 1/5th normal progression we will be the same characters for an insanely long time.

Do D&D games revolve around killing Goblins, or other 1st level creatures, for years on end to finally hit higher level?

I love a good story, but you also need progression. I'm at the point where everything in my spec costs 10xp. That is, possibly, up to 5 game sessions to get ONE talent.

It's perfectly valid to have a slow progression where the characters are more about what they do than how many boxes on the talent tree you are filling. As a player you can always vote with your feet and not play, or you can run your own game and give 50xp twice a session.

5 hours ago, Ghostofman said:

Yep... He looked at the big bads, realized the players could defeat them, and panicked.

This is a common occurrence with all RPGs based on an IP with characters that exist concurrent with the players. There's always a belief that those characters must be so powerful that the players cannot defeat them, lest some kind of paradox occur and George Lucas will show up and take your books away. It's silly, untrue, and a little childish, but there you have it.

Solution? You and all the other players do this: go to the gm as a group. Explain you respect his concern, but feel your own story and progression is more important to the overall group fun of the game. As such, you wish to make a gentleman's agreement: he awards 5ish XP per hour of play, and in exchange you agree to always treat major IP characters and thier place in established events with the appropriate respect (and won't be disappointed in any way should you never come across one at all). You will also assume the stats in Allies and Adversaries are just examples, and if the GM can alter and upgrade them however he needs to ensure balance with the party.

It's not a guarantee that the GM will come to his senses, and you may get trounced by a Boba Fett throwing 10 yellow dice on every check, but its worth a try.

This advice is more likely to make the GM hate the PCs and throw his game into a power level he does not want. Pushing the GM to run a game that is more cheesy than the GM wants is a good way to get the whole game to die.

Well one thing is for sure. An adult conversation needs to happen between the players and the GM. Otherwise the game will die because of dissatisfied players is just as deadly to a game as an upset GM.

Just now, Archlyte said:

This advice is more likely to make the GM hate the PCs and throw his game into a power level he does not want. Pushing the GM to run a game that is more cheesy than the GM wants is a good way to get the whole game to die.

Then it's probably time to kill the campaign and start over.

I've been in campaigns where the GM slowed progression too much, and it wasn't that fun and was euthanized after the first story arc.

If the GM has a legit reason to keep the pacing of the game slow, then he should have been up front and made sure all the players were on board before kicking it off. This is the sort of thing all that session 0 pregame stuff exists to sort out.

But it sounds like it wasn't.

1 minute ago, Ghostofman said:

Then it's probably time to kill the campaign and start over.

I've been in campaigns where the GM slowed progression too much, and it wasn't that fun and was euthanized after the first story arc.

If the GM has a legit reason to keep the pacing of the game slow, then he should have been up front and made sure all the players were on board before kicking it off. This is the sort of thing all that session 0 pregame stuff exists to sort out.

But it sounds like it wasn't.

Good point. I don't know how long the game has been going or if it just started. If the GM did that in midstream then I agree it was not cool. The players should be informed ahead of time if it is a slow XP or no XP situation. My thing is that if it's not your type of game and you can't accept that the GM is the boss then there are many other games to join out there.

1 hour ago, Archlyte said:

Good point. I don't know how long the game has been going or if it just started. If the GM did that in midstream then I agree it was not cool. The players should be informed ahead of time if it is a slow XP or no XP situation. My thing is that if it's not your type of game and you can't accept that the GM is the boss then there are many other games to join out there.

The GM isnt the boss though. It is a group activity and everyone's fun needs to be considered. The attitude that it is the GM's posession is a bad one as the GM wont have anything if the players are dissatisfied. So an adult conversation needs to be had. The GM needs to know what the players expect and the players need to know what the GM expects. This is why session 0s are so important.

Just now, Daeglan said:

The GM isnt the boss though. It is a group activity and everyone's fun needs to be considered. The attitude that it is the GM's posession is a bad one as the GM wont have anything if the players are dissatisfied. So an adult conversation needs to be had. The GM needs to know what the players expect and the players need to know what the GM expects. This is why session 0s are so important.

If you've ever GM'd a game past when it was fun for you then you know what I mean by that. I didn't say the GM is an ******* boss lol. Also I should have stipulated that some GM's don't much care about this kind of thing and so the players could in that instance just lobby for the game they feel better meets the standard of convention.

But if you derive your fun in GMing from the creative exercise and the output of those efforts then it's not gonna cut it for you to have the players second guessing you.

7 hours ago, Ghostofman said:

Yep... He looked at the big bads, realized the players could defeat them, and panicked.

Also this could be a sign that maybe he regular XP scheme results in power gaming. If the big bads in the book are not crazy why do the PC's need to be?

I get it. But it is still a group activity the fun of EVERYONE at the table needs to be included. If a game is no longer fun for the GM they should stop.

But no matter what a conversation needs to be had. As nothing will change for the better for anyone if concerns are not addressed.

1 minute ago, Archlyte said:

Also this could be a sign that maybe he regular XP scheme results in power gaming. If the big bads in the book are not crazy why do the PC's need to be?

could you edit this. It appears to be missing a word so I dont know the meaning.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

could you edit this. It appears to be missing a word so I dont know the meaning.

Oh I was saying that this could be the devs acknowledging that there is a sort of power plateau that is advisable and that the players should not really be going past it because of the way the dice work. This goes back to Sam talking about abilities getting up to 6 start being automatic successes. The standard XP schedule in the book may result in characters easily going over the level of the Big Bads and therefore the problem is that the XP delivery will easily get you past the point at which the most recognizable and accomplished characters in the setting are as far as power.

If the PCs are way above the big bads of the setting in power then they are likely at a point where you can just do simple resolution and compare the stats without rolling because the random roll isn't needed.

Just now, Archlyte said:

Oh I was saying that this could be the devs acknowledging that there is a sort of power plateau that is advisable and that the players should not really be going past it because of the way the dice work. This goes back to Sam talking about abilities getting up to 6 start being automatic successes. The standard XP schedule in the book may result in characters easily going over the level of the Big Bads and therefore the problem is that the XP delivery will easily get you past the point at which the most recognizable and accomplished characters in the setting are as far as power.

If the PCs are way above the big bads of the setting in power then they are likely at a point where you can just do simple resolution and compare the stats without rolling because the random roll isn't needed.

Considering Kieth Kappel ran a jedi Council game with character at around 1000 to 2000xp and the game worked fine. I think this is more of a consideration of where a lot of games reside and the fact that you generally don't do single big bads in this system. You tend to group them with minions and rivals. As it would take a really unwieldy nemesis to solo a group of PCs even with the nemesis 2 action rule.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

Considering Kieth Kappel ran a jedi Council game with character at around 1000 to 2000xp and the game worked fine. I think this is more of a consideration of where a lot of games reside and the fact that you generally don't do single big bads in this system. You tend to group them with minions and rivals. As it would take a really unwieldy nemesis to solo a group of PCs even with the nemesis 2 action rule.

So Sam was mistaken? I'm ok if that's the case but I am wondering why the big contradiction. Maybe they should release another splatbook called Deities and Demigods and re-stat those Characters for the normal power level everyone seems to prefer. What are people doing, stacking up all 6's and rolling with like 4 full trees? It's Weird to me that Vader by himself would not be enough of a challenge given he is actually supposed to be crazy dangerous. I guess your average weekly group can punt him into the dirt if not surrounded by legion of Stormtroopers.

6 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

So Sam was mistaken? I'm ok if that's the case but I am wondering why the big contradiction. Maybe they should release another splatbook called Deities and Demigods and re-stat those Characters for the normal power level everyone seems to prefer. What are people doing, stacking up all 6's and rolling with like 4 full trees? It's Weird to me that Vader by himself would not be enough of a challenge given he is actually supposed to be crazy dangerous. I guess your average weekly group can punt him into the dirt if not surrounded by legion of Stormtroopers.

It is easier to ramp up a stat block than it is to tune it down. Also these are more dangerous than you think.

17 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

It is easier to ramp up a stat block than it is to tune it down. Also these are more dangerous than you think.

I'll take your word for it. Also people are gonna do what they like and I get that, but the community seems to be scarce on the commodity of restraint and apparently sees no value in it. There is a big thread on how you can't keep XP from people who don't even show up to the game. Now a book comes out with the setting's heaviest adversaries and people are seeing they overshot those characters a ways back and the reaction is so what. Some percentage of the population of role-players out grow progression-based power gaming and a large segment does not. As one of the people who does not enjoy stacking up character stats to the rafters, either as a player or a GM, I find this one-sided representation on the forums to be somewhat disheartening. I thought the game was made to be playable by all kinds of player/GM approaches, but it seems like this view is not shared and the OP came here to find ways to shut down a minimalist GM who probably does not want to have to use 10 sets of dice for one skill check because he (the GM) finds it ridiculous.

27 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

I'll take your word for it. Also people are gonna do what they like and I get that, but the community seems to be scarce on the commodity of restraint and apparently sees no value in it. There is a big thread on how you can't keep XP from people who don't even show up to the game. Now a book comes out with the setting's heaviest adversaries and people are seeing they overshot those characters a ways back and the reaction is so what. Some percentage of the population of role-players out grow progression-based power gaming and a large segment does not. As one of the people who does not enjoy stacking up character stats to the rafters, either as a player or a GM, I find this one-sided representation on the forums to be somewhat disheartening. I thought the game was made to be playable by all kinds of player/GM approaches, but it seems like this view is not shared and the OP came here to find ways to shut down a minimalist GM who probably does not want to have to use 10 sets of dice for one skill check because he (the GM) finds it ridiculous.

Part of it is progression is fun. And part of it is this game still works at 2k xp. Minions are still dangerous. Wounds an damage output dont change much. There is no real benefit to slowing progression. This game does not suffer from the D6 games issues.

7 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Good point. I don't know how long the game has been going or if it just started. If the GM did that in midstream then I agree it was not cool. The players should be informed ahead of time if it is a slow XP or no XP situation. My thing is that if it's not your type of game and you can't accept that the GM is the boss then there are many other games to join out there.

The game initially started a few months ago, though due to his work we've only had 4 sessions, and the GM recently got Allies and Adversaries. He did a reboot and some of us made new characters, which is no big deal. I went from my attached character at the beginning of the thread, to a Wookie Hired Gun Marauder.

Also, what fun is it to play a character that is 1st level for the foreseeable future, so to speak?

57 minutes ago, bblaney001 said:

Also, what fun is it to play a character that is 1st level for the foreseeable future, so to speak?

Everybody plays games for different reasons. I would happily play a starting character and gain no XP for years if the story was engaging and would be utterly bored by getting XP if there was no engaging story to go with it. Different strokes for different folks. As it is, I am in a weekly game that I have played for about 6 months and have earned 115xp so far (some quick math tells me that is about 1-2xp per hour). I want about 25 more xp and I would call my character good for a long while however the story we are playing through is really, really fun and engaging so we aren't that concerned with stats and talents when we are too busy trying to solve a mystery, romance NPCs and get into trouble.

Everybody needs to ask themselves what do they find fun, are they having fun, if they aren't then how do they change it so they are having fun? For my group, it was a good chat after a few sessions about expectations and direction that really cleared the air, for other people it might be looking for a different group that is more aligned to the play style they find fun.